Features
For Jewish law authorities, the coronavirus has caused an unprecedented flurry of questions
By BEN HARRIS April 3, 2020 (JTA) — As the coronavirus pandemic forces Jews around the world to contemplate a Passover holiday in which large family gatherings will be all but impossible, an unusual question posed to a group of Israeli rabbis led to an extraordinary answer.
The question was whether it might be permissible for families to use internet-enabled videoconferencing to celebrate the Passover seder together even as they are sequestered in separate homes. Orthodox Jewish practice normally prohibits the use of electronics on the Sabbath and Jewish festivals, but might the unprecedented restrictions suddenly thrust upon billions of people permit an exception?
Remarkably, 14 Sephardic rabbis last week answered in the affirmative.
Some conditions were attached. The computer would have to be enabled prior to the onset of Passover and remain untouched for the duration of the holiday. And the leniency would only apply to the current emergency.
But given the unique importance of the seder ritual and the extreme conditions now in effect, the rabbis wrote, the use of videoconferencing technology is permitted “to remove sadness from adults and the elderly, to give them the motivation to continue to fight for their lives, and to avoid depression and mental weakness which could bring them to despair of life.”
The coronavirus pandemic has upended so many parts of life that it’s perhaps little surprise that it’s also having a significant impact in the field of Jewish law, or halacha. The sudden impossibility of once routine facets of observant Jewish life has generated a surge in questions never considered before — and modern technology means that Jews the world over are more able than ever to ask those questions and share their answers.
“I don’t think there’s ever been anything like this because of the proliferation of questions and because of the extraordinary means of communications,” said David Berger, a historian and dean of the Graduate School of Jewish Studies at Yeshiva University.
Among the questions rabbis have had to confront during the corona crisis: Is it permissible to constitute a Jewish prayer quorum over internet-enabled videoconference? Can married couples be physically intimate if the woman cannot immerse in a ritual bath because they are closed for public health reasons? How should burials be handled if authorities prohibit Jewish rituals around the preparation of bodies? Can synagogue services be livestreamed on Shabbat?
Rabbis are also beginning to consider some agonizing possibilities. Several Conservative movement authorities have published papers about what Jewish ethics has to say about medical triage, anticipating a moment when doctors may have to make difficult choices about who gets treatment.
“This has been ‘yomam valaylah’ — it’s been day and night,” said Rabbi Elliott Dorff, the co-chair of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, the Conservative movement’s authority on questions of Jewish law. “Once this is all over, this is going to be a really interesting case study of how halacha evolves quickly when it needs to.”
In Romania, the government’s recent declaration that any coronavirus fatalities had to be buried immediately presented Chief Rabbi Rafael Shaffer with a tortuous dilemma: What if a Jewish person died on Shabbat? Burying the body immediately would have resulted in a clear violation of the Jewish Sabbath, but allowing the body to be cremated is also a severe violation of Jewish law.
“The burial should be done on Shabbat if necessary,” Shaffer told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency after consulting with rabbinic authorities in Israel. “If it’s the only possibility to avoid cremation, then it should be done on Shabbat by non-Jews.”
For the moment, that situation remains in the realm of the theoretical. But other halachic questions are of urgent necessity. Many of the recent opinions have explicitly invoked the principle of “she’at had’chak” — literally “time of pressure,” a concept in Jewish law that permits a reliance on less authoritative opinions in emergency situations.
“No one thinks you can permit biblical violations for a pressure that doesn’t amount to threatening lives,” said Rabbi Aryeh Klapper, the Orthodox dean of the Center for Modern Torah Scholarship. “But maybe you can rely on less authoritative understandings of what the biblical prohibition is.”
The Conservative movement, which tends to take a more flexible line on matters of Jewish law than Orthodox authorities, has supported a number of leniencies under the rubric of she’at had’chak.
In March, Dorff and his law committee co-chair, Rabbi Pamela Barmash, issued an opinion permitting a prayer quorum to be constituted over internet-enabled videoconference. That opinion, which temporarily suspended a nearly unanimous 2001 ruling that such a quorum was not permissible, would enable the recitation of the Mourner’s Kaddish by people isolated in their homes. Common practice is that the mourner’s prayer can only be said if 10 Jewish adults are gathered in one physical location.
The law committee also has expressed support for loosening various restrictions around physical touch between married couples should Jewish ritual baths be forced to close. Couples that closely observe Jewish law traditionally refrain from any form of touch for the period of the woman’s menstruation and for a week after, resuming contact only after immersion in a mikvah.
But the committee posted a letter on its website this week from Rabbi Joshua Heller asserting that under certain circumstances, and only for the period of the coronavirus crisis, a woman could resume sexual relations with her husband after showering in 11.25 gallons of water — a rough approximation of the Talmudic measure of 40 kabim.
“I think we are learning from earlier historical epochs of crisis and taking inspiration from the flexibility that our predecessors showed,” said Rabbi Daniel Nevins, a committee member and the dean of the rabbinical school at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
To be sure, not all rabbis have accepted these leniencies.
After Rabbi Daniel Sperber, a liberal Orthodox rabbi in Israel, issued an opinion permitting some forms of physical touch between married couples should ritual baths become inaccessible, another Israeli Orthodox rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, called the opinion a “complete mistake.”
Israel’s two chief rabbis, David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef, said the opinion permitting videoconferencing at the seder was “unqualified.”
And Rabbi Hershel Schachter, a leading Orthodox authority at Yeshiva University, wrote recently that a prayer quorum could not be constituted by participants standing on nearby porches — even if they could all see each other.
“The 10 men must all be standing in the same room,” Schachter wrote.
But Schachter, who has personally published no less than a dozen opinions on matters related to coronavirus, has shown flexibility in other areas.
Schachter has ruled that a patient discharged from a hospital on Shabbat can be driven home by a family member because it’s dangerous to remain in the hospital longer than necessary and taxis carry their own risks of coronavirus transmission. He has said that isolated individuals who suffer from psychological conditions that might endanger their lives if they were unable to communicate with family may use phone or internet to communicate on a Jewish holiday.
And in a ruling that has wide applicability at a time when many people are preparing to host Passover meals for the first time, he suggested a workaround for the obligation of immersing utensils in a ritual bath before using them. Since baths are now closed for such purposes, Schachter ruled that one could use the utensils without immersion by first declaring them legally ownerless — a workaround that would normally not be permitted.
Many rabbis have expressed concern that such loosening of the rules, even if expressly done only to address a pressing (and presumably temporary) need, might nevertheless create new norms of behavior that will outlast the current crisis. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time.
According to a recent article by Rabbi Elli Fisher, during the 19th-century cholera epidemic, there were so many mourners that Rabbi Akiva Eger, who led the Jewish community in Poznan, Poland, ruled that it was permissible for many mourners to recite the Mourner’s Kaddish simultaneously. At the time, the practice was that only one person recited Kaddish at a time.
Given the numbers of the dead, that practice would have left people with few opportunities to recite the mourner’s prayer. The practice of reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish as a group remains the dominant one in synagogues today.
“I do think that our people are wise enough and insightful enough to understand the difference between this crisis situation and normal situations
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
